By Abiodun Oluwadare

Nigeria is approaching another defining moment in its democratic journey. As political actors position themselves for the 2027 presidential election, a fundamental question confronts the country: can a federation as diverse and historically sensitive as Nigeria sustain political stability when the pursuit of individual ambition threatens the informal understandings that have helped to manage its competing regional interests?

This question goes beyond the personalities seeking the presidency. It touches the very logic of Nigeria’s political accommodation: the recognition that, in a country marked by deep regional, ethnic and religious diversity, the exercise of political power must be accompanied by a credible sense of inclusion. The Constitution does not prescribe compulsory North-South rotation, but the convention has acquired considerable political significance since the return to democratic government in 1999. It represents an effort to manage competing expectations and reduce the fear that any major section of the federation might be permanently excluded from the highest office.

Rotation is neither a perfect solution to Nigeria’s political challenges nor a guarantee of good governance. It cannot replace competence, integrity or accountability. It nevertheless reflects an important political reality: in a deeply plural society, stability depends not only on who wins power but also on whether the process through which power changes hands is perceived as fair and inclusive.

It is against this background that the renewed presidential ambition of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar deserves serious reflection. The question is not whether Atiku possesses the constitutional right to contest. He does, subject to the applicable legal requirements. The more consequential question is whether the exercise of that right, in the prevailing political circumstances, reflects the restraint and strategic judgment that Nigeria’s fragile political compact demands.

A democracy must protect the right to compete. A responsible political class must also recognise that not every constitutionally permissible course of action is necessarily the wisest one for national cohesion. Where political conventions have evolved to accommodate competing interests, disregarding them may carry consequences far beyond the immediate electoral contest. Nigeria must therefore consider not merely who can win the presidency in 2027, but what the struggle to win it might cost the country.

The understanding behind rotation
Nigeria’s Fourth Republic offers a useful context for this debate. Olusegun Obasanjo, from the South, served as president from 1999 to 2007. He was succeeded by Umaru Musa Yar’Adua from the North, whose death in 2010 brought his southern vice-president, Goodluck Jonathan, to the presidency. Jonathan subsequently won the 2011 election and served until 2015. Muhammadu Buhari, a northerner, then governed for eight years before handing over to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a southerner, in May 2023.

These transitions were not governed by a constitutional requirement of regional rotation. They were shaped by electoral competition, party arrangements and, at critical moments, recognition of the need for political accommodation. Over time, the North-South understanding became an influential convention in the management of presidential succession.

Its underlying rationale was straightforward: neither the North nor the South should develop the impression that the presidency is the permanent entitlement of one region. Both should have a reasonable opportunity to participate in national leadership within a common constitutional order. Rotation consequently became more than an electoral formula; it was a political instrument for reducing mutual suspicion and reassuring communities that their place in the Nigerian project was secure.

The convention has not always been applied consistently. Jonathan’s succession to Yar’Adua and subsequent election, for example, altered the anticipated sequence of regional turns. Nevertheless, the broader principle has remained politically influential because it addresses a problem that constitutional eligibility alone cannot resolve: the need for confidence that no major section of the country will be permanently excluded from the highest office.

The transition from Buhari to Tinubu in 2023 reinforced the expectation that the South would have its opportunity after eight years of northern leadership. Many Nigerians consequently believe that the South should ordinarily be allowed to complete an eight-year presidential cycle before power returns to the North.

The question is whether this expectation will continue to command respect or become expendable whenever a powerful political actor sees an opportunity to pursue the presidency.

A political understanding cannot endure if it is observed only when convenient. Its credibility depends on the willingness of political actors to respect it even when doing so may not serve their immediate interests. When established understandings are abandoned whenever they become inconvenient, every succession risks becoming an unrestricted contest in which immediate advantage takes precedence over the consequences for the wider political community.

This is the deeper concern surrounding the 2027 presidential contest. It is not that a northerner would necessarily govern badly, or that a southerner would automatically govern well. Geography guarantees neither competence nor integrity. The concern is that disregarding the rotation convention at this stage could weaken confidence in the arrangements that have helped to manage Nigeria’s political diversity.
Atiku Abubakar and the limits of ambition

Atiku Abubakar is an experienced politician whose national profile and determination to lead Nigeria are well established. His supporters are entitled to believe that he possesses the experience and capacity to govern. He is also entitled, under the Constitution and subject to its requirements, to seek the presidency.

Yet constitutional eligibility and political wisdom are different questions.

The right to seek power does not remove the responsibility to consider the wider implications of doing so. In a plural society, statesmanship sometimes requires a political leader to look beyond the immediate prospects of personal success and consider whether his ambition might undermine an understanding that has helped preserve national stability.

The controversy surrounding Atiku’s renewed ambition is therefore not simply a dispute over who should contest in 2027. It concerns the relationship between individual political rights and collective expectations in a federation where regional sensitivities remain consequential.

In September 2026, former Senator Shehu Sani argued publicly that an Atiku victory in 2027 would undermine the rotational presidency convention and could generate resentment in the South. Sani acknowledged Atiku’s constitutional right to contest while maintaining that the South should be allowed to complete its expected eight-year cycle. His intervention demonstrates that support for rotation is not exclusively a southern position; it also finds expression among northern political voices.

The question for Atiku is whether his ambition sufficiently accounts for this political reality. After eight years of Buhari’s presidency, should a northern aspirant seek to return the presidency to the North after only four years of southern leadership, or should the established convention be respected to preserve confidence in the wider political arrangement?

Advocates of unrestricted competition have a legitimate counterargument. They can insist that elections should be decided by voters rather than informal agreements, and that zoning may constrain merit, narrow voter choice and encourage parties to prioritise regional calculations over competence. These objections deserve serious consideration.

Nevertheless, the fact that rotation is not constitutionally compulsory does not make it politically irrelevant. Democratic institutions are sustained not only by written laws but also by conventions, restraint and a shared understanding of the responsibilities accompanying political power. Where an informal arrangement helps to manage a country’s diversity, the decision to disregard it deserves scrutiny, even when that decision is legally permissible.

Atiku and his supporters must be allowed to make their case. But the pursuit of electoral victory has consequences beyond the candidate and his immediate political constituency. The same standard must apply to Tinubu and every other aspirant. No incumbent should use rotation to escape scrutiny of his performance, just as no challenger should assume that the desire for change automatically validates his candidacy.

The North Beyond the Presidency
The debate also presents an opportunity for northern political leaders to reconsider the meaning of political influence. Northern Nigeria is not a homogeneous political bloc. Its citizens hold diverse preferences, ambitions and assessments of the country’s future. It would be wrong to assume that northern voters are united behind a single candidate or that their political choices can be explained solely by regional identity.

Nevertheless, identity-based mobilisation remains a powerful feature of Nigerian electoral politics. It becomes particularly troubling when regional solidarity is invoked to secure political power without sufficient attention to policy performance, public accountability and the wider national interest.

One of the foundations of democratic choice is education. Access to quality education equips citizens to interrogate political claims, evaluate competing programmes and distinguish public interest from private ambition. Persistent educational disadvantage in parts of northern Nigeria therefore represents not merely a social and economic problem but also a challenge for democratic development.

The responsibility for addressing this problem rests heavily on political leadership. Governments that have failed to provide adequate schools, retain teachers, improve learning outcomes and expand opportunities for young people must answer for their priorities. Leaders who seek electoral support from disadvantaged populations should offer more than appeals to regional loyalty or historical grievances.

Education does not automatically make voters immune to manipulation, just as limited formal schooling does not deprive citizens of political judgment. The point is that unequal access to education and civic information can restrict opportunities for informed participation. A stronger educational system, supported by accessible public information and genuine political debate, would improve the conditions under which citizens assess those seeking their mandate.

Northern Nigeria possesses enormous human and economic potential. Its political influence should be measured not only by the votes it can mobilise or the frequency with which it produces a president, but also by its capacity to improve education, reduce poverty, strengthen security, create employment and contribute to national development.

The same principle applies to the South. Southern voters should not support a candidate merely because he comes from their region, any more than northern voters should do so. Regional representation may be an important consideration in a plural federation, but it cannot substitute for competence, integrity and credible policy.

Nigeria needs a political culture in which citizens recognise both their regional interests and their responsibilities to the federation. Voters must be able to ask difficult questions of candidates irrespective of their origins, while political leaders must understand that electoral support is a mandate for public service rather than a licence to perpetuate elite interests.

The Mambilla Question and the Burden of Accountability
Beyond the debate over rotation, every presidential aspirant must be prepared to answer questions about his public record. Experience in government should not automatically translate into entitlement to return to office. It should invite closer examination of the decisions taken, the results achieved and the lessons learned.

For Atiku, one issue that warrants particular attention is the long-running controversy surrounding the Mambilla hydropower project in Taraba State. Intended to make a major contribution to Nigeria’s electricity generation capacity, the project has endured decades of delay, contractual disputes and questions about public administration. Its history illustrates the difficulties Nigeria faces in delivering strategic infrastructure and protecting the national interest in complex commercial arrangements.

In September 2026, an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration tribunal issued a decision rejecting major claims brought against Nigeria by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and its promoter, Leno Adesanya. The proceedings also examined transactions associated with efforts to secure the Mambilla project, including a payment of $500,000 made by Adesanya in January 2003 to a United States bank account belonging to Jennifer Douglas, Atiku’s then-wife.

According to reporting on the tribunal’s final award, Adesanya described the payment as part of a foreign-exchange transaction. The tribunal found that his explanation was not supported by independent witness or documentary evidence and said the circumstances raised “significant red flags” concerning the payment and its possible relationship to efforts to secure the project.

The tribunal, however, expressly observed that there was no evidence in the arbitration record that Atiku had actually exercised his official duties in a manner that facilitated the award of the contract to Sunrise. It also did not issue a criminal conviction against him. These distinctions are essential. An adverse observation about a transaction is not equivalent to a judicial finding of personal criminal guilt.

Atiku has denied being indicted for corruption by the tribunal and has challenged claims that the proceedings established that he received a bribe or improperly influenced the contract award. His position must be acknowledged alongside the concerns recorded in the award. A responsible public debate should neither convert those concerns into a finding of guilt nor use the absence of a criminal conviction to dismiss every legitimate question arising from the transaction.

The matter has acquired further significance following reports in September 2026 that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had established a team to investigate individuals and transactions mentioned in the arbitration proceedings. The reported development is an investigative step, not a determination of guilt. Any investigation must be conducted independently, fairly and in accordance with the law, with all persons concerned afforded due process.

The appropriate response is to insist that the relevant facts be established transparently by the competent authorities. Atiku should have a fair opportunity to address legitimate questions concerning his knowledge of, involvement in or relationship to the transactions under scrutiny. Equally, Nigerians should not be expected to disregard serious questions merely because they concern a prominent political figure seeking the presidency.

Mambilla is a strategic national asset, not the private concern of any political party. Nigerians deserve to know how decisions affecting the project were made, whether public officials acted appropriately, whether private interests improperly benefited and what must be done to prevent further waste of public resources.

Reliable electricity is fundamental to industrial development, employment, education, healthcare and national competitiveness. Every year of avoidable delay carries economic and social costs. The country must therefore insist on accountability while pursuing the project’s eventual delivery in a manner that protects public resources.

The Mambilla controversy should not, by itself, be used to pronounce Atiku unfit for the presidency without established findings. It should, however, form part of the wider demand that presidential aspirants account for matters arising from their periods in public office. A candidate’s willingness to address difficult questions transparently is itself relevant to public confidence in his commitment to accountability.

Privatisation and the Question of Public Interest
A related area requiring examination is the privatisation programme undertaken during the Obasanjo administration, when Atiku served as vice-president and was associated with the administration’s economic reform agenda. Privatisation was presented as a means of reducing the burden of inefficient public enterprises, improving productivity and encouraging private investment. Its defenders argue that the state need not remain the operator of every commercial enterprise. Its critics have questioned the transparency of particular transactions, the valuation of public assets and whether the benefits were distributed fairly.

The debate should not be reduced to a blanket condemnation of privatisation. Public enterprises can be inefficient, and private participation can improve performance where competition, regulation and accountability are effective. But privatisation can also produce poor outcomes when transactions lack transparency, regulatory institutions are weak or public assets are transferred on terms that fail to protect the public interest.

Questions have been raised over whether particular transactions during that period favoured politically connected individuals or interests. Such claims must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, using transaction records, official reports and other credible evidence. Allegations of benefits to family members or associates should not be treated as established facts without substantiation.

Given Atiku’s senior position in that administration and his subsequent presidential ambitions, he should be prepared to explain the policy rationale, procedures and outcomes of the reforms with which he was associated. Which enterprises were privatised? What criteria guided the selection of successful bidders? Were public assets fairly valued? What benefits accrued to Nigerians, and what safeguards were put in place against abuse?

These are questions of democratic accountability, not attempts to disqualify a candidate merely because he participated in a controversial policy. Citizens should be able to evaluate the records of those seeking to govern them, especially where their previous decisions had significant implications for public resources.

The same examination must be applied to the incumbent administration and all other contenders. The management of public assets, the conduct of public procurement, the use of public funds and the protection of national interests should remain central to the assessment of every presidential candidate.

Ultimately, Nigeria requires a political culture in which public office is understood as a trust. Political leaders should be judged by what they did, the standards they upheld, the outcomes they delivered and their willingness to account for decisions made under their authority.

What Is at Stake in 2027?
The danger of abandoning the rotation convention is not that a northern president would necessarily govern badly or that a southern president would necessarily govern well. The danger lies in the possible erosion of confidence in the informal arrangements through which Nigeria manages political inclusion.

If the South is widely expected to complete an eight-year cycle but that expectation is disregarded in 2027, resentment could deepen the perception that political agreements in Nigeria are temporary instruments of convenience. Such a development may encourage future contenders to treat every succession as an unrestricted struggle in which no consideration beyond immediate electoral advantage deserves serious attention.

That would be an unfortunate direction for a country already confronting insecurity, economic hardship, distrust of public institutions and competing claims of marginalisation. National cohesion is not sustained by constitutional provisions alone. It also depends on the willingness of political leaders to avoid unnecessary provocations, honour reasonable expectations and demonstrate that the federation is governed through a shared sense of responsibility.

The argument for rotation must, however, be defended with intellectual honesty. It should not become a permanent entitlement for any region, a mechanism for protecting political dynasties or a substitute for democratic choice. Nor should it be used to silence legitimate criticism of an incumbent president. Its value rests on its capacity to promote inclusion and reduce the perception of exclusion.

Political parties therefore have a responsibility to consider not only the immediate electoral prospects of their candidates but also the wider implications of their choices. A party may win an election and still inherit a more divided country if it disregards the political sensitivities of a diverse federation. Conversely, a party that combines credible candidates, sound policies and a genuine commitment to inclusion can strengthen the legitimacy of the political system.

The North has an opportunity to demonstrate political maturity by looking beyond the immediate prospect of producing the next president. Supporting the completion of the South’s expected turn would not amount to surrendering northern interests. It could instead reinforce the credibility of a convention from which the North may itself benefit in the future.

The corresponding obligation on southern leaders is to recognise that their turn at the presidency carries a responsibility to govern inclusively, protect the interests of all Nigerians and deliver tangible improvements in citizens’ lives. No region should expect political accommodation without accepting the obligations that accompany it.

Beyond the Politics of Winning
Nigeria’s political problem is not a shortage of ambitious individuals. It is the persistent difficulty of reconciling personal ambition with collective national purpose.
The 2027 election will inevitably be competitive. Tinubu and the other aspirants must be judged on their records, programmes, competence, integrity and capacity to address the country’s problems. The electorate must retain its constitutional freedom to make its choice. But democratic freedom should not prevent Nigerians from asking whether particular political decisions are wise, responsible or consistent with the conventions that have helped preserve the federation’s fragile balance.

Atiku Abubakar must therefore be assessed not merely as a politician with the right to contest, but as a statesman whose choices carry implications beyond his personal political future. His supporters are entitled to make their case. His critics are equally entitled to question whether his ambition in 2027 is consistent with the prevailing expectation of North-South rotation. His public record, including the questions surrounding Mambilla and the privatisation programme, should be examined with fairness, evidence and a commitment to due process.

The incumbent must face the same test. Tinubu’s economic reforms, the cost of living, unemployment, insecurity and the performance of public institutions must remain central to the 2027 debate. Rotation cannot be a shield against accountability, just as the promise of change cannot substitute for a credible programme of government.

Ultimately, Nigeria must decide what kind of political culture it wishes to sustain. Is the presidency to be pursued as an unrestricted prize for the most determined contender, or should those seeking it recognise the informal understandings that help diverse communities coexist within one federation?

The answer will have consequences well beyond 2027. A country as complex as Nigeria cannot afford a political culture in which every agreement is discarded once it becomes inconvenient. Nor can it build a stable democracy by treating regional identity as the sole measure of political legitimacy.

What Nigeria needs is a mature settlement between constitutional rights, political competition, equitable inclusion and responsible leadership. Rotation, properly understood, can contribute to that settlement, but only when accompanied by accountability, credible public policy and a commitment to national service.
Nigeria stands at a crossroads. The 2027 presidential election will test not only the strength of its democratic institutions but also the maturity of its political leadership. The choice before the political class is whether to pursue power without regard for established understandings or to recognise that national stability sometimes demands restraint, accommodation and sacrifice.

Atiku Abubakar has the right to contest, just as Nigerians have the right to question the wisdom of his ambition. Every other aspirant, including the incumbent, must equally submit to rigorous scrutiny. Ultimately, neither regional identity nor political experience should substitute for accountability, competence and a demonstrable commitment to the national interest.
The presidency is an office to be won, but Nigeria is a country to be preserved. The true measure of statesmanship is not simply the determination to acquire power, but the wisdom to recognise what its pursuit may cost the nation.

Abiodun Oluwadare is a Professor of Political Science, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna